On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 06:43:32PM +0000, Adam Olsen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 07:24:46PM +0100, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > You are right. But it is still possible in the tarfs case. If you want > > to manipulate the file, you edit foo.tar. If you want the directory > > tree, it's foo.tar/. > > Yeah, but I was actually thinking about gzipped files (as I'm not > likely to keep an uncompressed tar around)
But those would have an extension of .tar.gz which could be handled different. > > > I agree. Btw, naming a non-gzipped file .gz breaks opening them with > > > vim, and presumably every other app that already supports gzipped > > > files. Being compatable is very important. > > > > That's just stupid, if they can't uncompress the file they should show > > the raw data IMHO. But as usual people don't think like I do and being > > compatible is indeed important. But we still can use it in the tarfs > > case I think. > > "compatable? Why would somebody want to obfuscate the filenames? > Opening gzipped files is just a hack anyway." You can read that as "a way to turn it off." :-) > We can start with the bug reports after we have real code, not just > some theoretical ideas :) Yes, yet another thing to annoy maintainers. :) Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
msg02453/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
